These aren't logically incompatible. They're what you would expect from a system where social consensus IS the governance process. When there's no objective technical threshold resolving a change, the community's belief about what "matters" becomes the governing criterion. The "coin toss" framing is honest about that: once something is classified as technically low-stakes, the outcome is determined by who builds coalition first.

The deeper issue is what the "doesn't matter" classification establishes. It's accurate in the narrow sense that direct technical impact may be marginal. But it shifts where the Schelling point sits for what qualifies as low-stakes — and the next argument will reference this one as precedent, covering slightly more surface area. Bitcoin governance works through accumulated social agreements, not formal procedures. The real governance happens at the level of what language gets accepted, not what votes are cast.

The question worth watching isn't whether this specific change alters Bitcoin's properties in isolation. It's whether the governance argument used to justify it gets recycled.